You're right Jay , i gotta say something right now and give with it an apology when i posted the information the fellas gave me at the "Feathered Hook" gave me for sunday of the jam , including Treaster run if i shouldn't have i'm REAlLLy SORRY. If nothing else respect when someone else helps you out with info without writing it in the sky AMEN

The problem on this issue is that the premises of the "keep it quiet" crowd is questionable. There can be nothing unethical unless "broadcasting" actually: 1) drives anglers to the stream or stream section; 2) drives an excessive/unbearable amount of anglers to the location; AND also drives anglers who will intentionally or not, harm the resource.

There is just way too much assuming going on to derive an ethical norm that is anything more than a prejudice.

When this topic comes up, I always say, and I think it bears repeating, that people do not get upset at the mention of stream or small streams in general, but they get upset when their special stream is mentioned. Now, there are a few sanctimonious exceptions, but that does not create a social norm.

Posted on: 2010/9/23 20:22

_________________Some people will never learn anything, for this reason, because they understand everything too soon.

I am an advocate of sharing and exchanging information in private venues. Jay, you've shared information with me and would be happy to do the same if asked. Thank you for that. I have also shared with others in the same ways and am more than happy to do so.

Posts that encourage small stream fishing are great as they can be inspiring, helpful and enjoyable to read and view photos as long as careful discretion is used.

Sharing information is an essential aspect of sportsmanship IMHO, but I am not an advocate of broadcasting specific locations to the masses.

When this topic comes up, I always say, and I think it bears repeating, that people do not get upset at the mention of stream or small streams in general, but they get upset when their special stream is mentioned. Now, there are a few sanctimonious exceptions, but that does not create a social norm.

My personal experience is different.

I know of some "under the radar" streams that I will never visit again, and I refuse to broadcast their names or locations. In Montana, I can think of three that I don't share publicly, and I highly doubt I'll ever bother with them again. I posted photos of the one stream in my report, and it was the only location that I chose not to name. I was not asked to keep quiet. There are also a few in New England. I have shared the names and locations of all of them via PM and in person.

Did you find any of those streams on your own? No, then I understand why you don't want to share them beyond a few choice people. It would be disrespectful to the person who showed you that water, whether they swore you to silence or not. I have no problem recognizing an ethical duty to the person who showed you the water, but not to a stranger who just happens to fish the same location.

Like it or not, it is the information age, and even with all these pesky ethical no-nos, I think the dissemination of information more broadly is a positive thing, even if you are sitting on my bench when I show up.

Posted on: 2010/9/23 20:49

_________________Some people will never learn anything, for this reason, because they understand everything too soon.

Yes, I found one of the montana streams on my own, using mapping software and other traditional information that I had. Don had to work, and gave us some tools to find our own work for the day. He told me what he knew, but had never visited the area. It involved a stunning 3 hour drive.

I have done my homework, and developed a rough system to find limestone spring creeks, and have put it to work in many locations.

The NH streams are the product of about three tanks of gas and a prayer.

So you keep quiet about those waters because they may be someone else's secret? Where does that leave any water? I just told you honestly in the secret stream thread that my "special places" are on many different streams, some quite popular. Is it OK for you to speak of those? This is the other flaw in the poll. Everyone has to supply their own definitions. What is "small" what is "unknown" what is "fragile" what is "underutilized" what is "overcrowded?"

Posted on: 2010/9/23 20:58

_________________Some people will never learn anything, for this reason, because they understand everything too soon.

"ethical" might be a strong word for this discussion....maybe "etiquette" would be better? I dont know....anyone can write about any stream if they want...jeez people write books about streams and tell you exactly where to go...im sure all of us own one of these "references"....use your own judgment on what to write

I understand that there are differing opinions over what qualifies, but there are many situations where there is nearly unanimous agreement. Like everything, it's not boolean. We'll just have to see what happens in individual situations, like always.

But what I do hope is accomplished, is that we can see where the concern for posting sensitive details comes from.

I don't name the streams because they are special due to the fact that they are not heavily used, or a "name" stream. I enjoy those types of streams an awful lot, as do many others. I think it's good to preserve that experience for those that "need" it. As you know, those of us that do will find it as long as it exists. Sharing everything, or spreading the pressure, robs those of us of that opportunity... whether we cross paths with another angler or not. I enjoy that there are still highly productive places that require a little guesswork. I think it's ok to leave that relatively small selection of streams off the glowing PAFF screens, and work to ensure it when necessary.

Like everyone else, I think there are mitigating factors. First, to get around the "ethical" question (skip this if you don't care about ethics): Is it "ethical" in terms of the specific resource, the fisherman who currently use it, or western society at large? As far as the rights of individual fish, they would probably tell you no, it's not ethical. In terms of the resource more broadly, perhaps, if it leads to increased community awareness, thus preventing development, encouraging TU to get involved, etc. Finally, for the anglers involved, solitude and willing fish must be weighed against the desire for happy fly fisherman to want to use and protect resources. It's the same problem that fly shops have. I want to get a good tip on a local fishing spot when I buy a bunch of gear, but I also don't want it to be overfished--so what info do fly shops give out to which customers?

That aside, I think some information should be shared via PM. Brook trout streams, for example, in their entirety shouldn't be mentioned. I have no problem talking about Valley Creek on the board, however, which is small but well traveled. That said, I would not mention specific access points outside of a PM. Same goes for rivers.